Doesn't the Bible interpret itself? SDA question

[Katholikos]

Glenamyaglen:

Hello Kathlikos,

Listen I dont want to continue in this argument, its foolishness.

People often say that when faced with the facts. All the historical facts are on the Catholic side of the ledger.

You obviously believe what you believe,.

I believe it because I believe the Truth. I am a former atheist; it took a lot to convince me.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Meaning that you don’t want to believe what I wrote? I’m not sure what you mean by this.

I will close by saying that Peter was not the first pope, he had a wife, Matthew 8:14, and the first thing Christ said to him after giving him the keys to the Kingdom was get behind Me Satan, Matthew 16:23, that doesn’t sound like someone thats infallable to me.

And the last thing Christ said to Peter was “feed my sheep. . .tend (the Greek means rule) my sheep. . . feed my sheep” John 21:15-19. Christ referred to the Church as a “sheepfold” and Himself as the shepherd. Here He is reiterating and reaffirming his appointent of Peter are his deputy (vicar) – the chief shepherd who represents him on earth as head of His Church (Mt 16:18-19).

Yes, Peter was married. So?

“Infallible” means that the Pope is protected against teaching error in his capacity as the leader of the Universal (Catholic) Church, when he is teaching faith and morals.

Whats more the Book of Romans proves that Peter was not in Rome, if he had been there then Paul would not have needed to come there that they might be established, Romans 1:11. Plus Paul makes no mention of Peter in the closing chapter of the Book of Romans when he is listing all those there.

1 Peter was written from Rome. “The chosen one” is the Church. “Babylon” was a code name for Rome, where St. Peter was with John Mark (author of the Gospel of Mark).

Ignatius wrote to the Romans in 110 A.D.: “Not as Peter and Paul do I command you. They were apostles . . .”

Irenaeus Against Heresies, c. 180/199: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and origanized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
**
Tertullian wrote c. 207: “. . . the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood.”

Peter was crucified upside down in Rome c. 64 or 67 A.D. by order of Emperor Nero.

There is a whole lot more proof that Peter was in Rome, but I’ll leave it there for now.

Peter was the first Pope – the first Bishop of Rome. For a complete list of the Popes, go here: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

We are people who have kept the True Christ of the Bibles Word, we are the True Church that He founded, the little flock, Luke 12:32. We keep the laws and Holy Days and everything else that He commands His people to do, Matthew28:18-20. You will know who we are soon enough, everyone will. We are 2000 years old,

Then show us the documentation. Produce even one historical record of your church from the early Christian centuries. You won’t even give the name of your “church.”

but unlike the catholic church we have not tried to change everything the Bible teaches with our own added books.

The first list of canonized Scriptures is found in the decrees of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. I can provide them to you. Or go to the History of the Bible thread in this forum. The Church has not changed the canon from that day in 382 to this. But Protestants and others have subtracted from the original Bible; the Orthodox have added to it.

We have kept the faith once delivered, Jude 3, we have kept His Word.

Tell me the name of your “church” so I can check out its history. Saying “my church is apostolic” doesn’t make it so. The founders of your “apostolic church” aren’t telling you the truth.
Don’t close your eyes and ears to the Truth, glenamyaglin. Your salvation is at risk.

Peace to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers, Jay

 

[joelmichael]

Glenamyaglen,

If I were you I wouldn’t want to argue anymore either. Though, I’m not sure why else you would have shown up here. Obviously, it wasn’t to learn. From your posts and the subsequent responses, I gather that you’ve gotten the impression that your arguments won’t get very far here.

May God bless the defenders of the One True Catholic Faith.

Joel

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Katholikos:

A member of the Seventh-Day Adventists asked this question on another thread:

"Doesn’t the Bible interpret itself?

From a larger article on **Sola Scriptura ** at

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6832e

APPROACH # 3
Let the clear passages interpret the unclear.

This must have seemed the perfect solution to the problem of how to interpret the Bible by itself — let the easily understood passages “interpret” those which are not clear. The logic of this approach is simple, though one passage may state a truth obscurely, surely the same truth would be clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. Simply use these “clear passages” as the key and you will have unlocked the meaning of the “obscure passage.” As the Tubingen Lutheran scholars argued in their first exchange of letters with Patriarch Jeremias II:

Therefore, no better way could ever be found to interpret the Scriptures, other than that Scripture be interpreted by Scripture, that is to say, through itself. For the entire Scripture has been dictated by the one and the same Spirit, who best understands his own will and is best able to state His own meaning.10

As promising as this method seemed, it soon proved an insufficient solution to the problem of Protestant chaos and divisions. The point at which this approach disintegrates is in determining which passages are “clear” and which are “obscure.” Baptists, who believe that it is impossible for a Christian to lose his salvation once he is “saved,” see a number of passages which they maintain quite clearly teach their doctrine of “Eternal Security” — for example, “For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:29), and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27-28). But when Baptists come across verses which seem to teach that salvation can be lost, such as “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression” (Ezekiel 33:12), then they use the passages that are “clear” to explain away the passages that are “unclear.” Methodists, who believe that believers may lose their salvation if they turn their backs on God, find no such obscurity in such passages, and on the contrary, view the above mentioned Baptist “proof-texts” in the light of the passages that they see as “clear.” And so Methodists and Baptists throw verses of the Bible back and forth at each other, each wondering why the other cant “see” what seems very “clear” to them.

**Merry ** Christmas!

 

[Glenamyaglen]

It is honorable for a man to stop striving since any fool can start a quarrel, Proverbs 20:3

I have been a fool, now I attempt being honorable - I do not want to argue. I’m not afraid of your facts, you still, out of all of your posts have only shown me, what? 3 actual passages from the Bible?! and I’ll bet you didn’t look up any of the passages that I referanced. Your facts are fiction.

I meant that I cant argue you into what I believe, I can prove you wrong over and over again but you will find a way to reason around what I’m saying.
At any rate it was wrong of me to come here and start preaching, I do apologize, I will bother you no more.

May God bless each of you according to His will.

 

[Katholikos]

Glenamyaglen:

. . . I do not want to argue.

I’m not “arguing.” I’m merely responding to allegations made in your posts.

I’m not afraid of your facts, you still, out of all of your posts have only shown me, what? 3 actual passages from the Bible?! and I’ll bet you didn’t look up any of the passages that I referanced. Your facts are fiction.

The facts I presented are verifiable. Tell me which “facts are fiction” in your opinion, and I’ll provide the sources so you can check them out.

I looked up all of the passages that you referenced, but none of them have any impact on your claim to be a member of the “True Apostolic Church.” I’ve asked you questions about the Bible, such as "which Bible? Whose Bible is the “real” Word of God? There are many different collections of books called ‘the Bible.’ Which do you use and why? Why is your “Bible” the right one, and the others wrong? You ignore my questions. If you’re going to quote the Bible, you should at least be able to explain what it is and why yours is different compared to other ‘Bibles.’

I meant that I cant argue you into what I believe, I can prove you wrong over and over again but you will find a way to reason around what I’m saying.

You’ve made no attempt (so far) either to prove me wrong or answer my questions.

At any rate it was wrong of me to come here and start preaching, I do apologize, I will bother you no more.

You’re welcome to come here and preach. But you can’t expect us not to answer.

Please stay and answer the questions we’ve asked of you. You should be able to defend your faith and not run and hide from the tough questions. You say your church is apostolic. I’m just asking for the evidence.

I hope to hear from you again. You said you in your first post that you wanted to discuss the question addressed in this thread. So why are you leaving?

Have you read the article posted by Father Ambrose, who is a Russian Orthodox priest? It directly relates to the question: “Do the Scriptures interpret themselves?” What do you think of this article?

Peace to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers.

Jay Damien

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello Katholikos,

I hope you are well. The Bibles I use “normally” in Sabbath services, and regular study, are primarily the New King James Version, and also secondarily the King James Version. When I get into deep study I use a pretty wide variety, I have the Amplified Version, the NIV, the Living Bible, the New American Bible, the James Moffatt Translation, a NKJV Greek English Interlinear of the New Testament, I also have a Companion Bible from Kregel, (KJV), and a couple different concordances that I use, plus a few history books. I find that one has to use a wide variety of translations to get a clearer view of whats being said in some places in Scripture just because something, a little bit, gets lost in translation. A good example for instance is 2 Peter 3:17, in both the King James and the New King James, it reads, “the error of the wicked”, well that word “wicked” should really be translated, “lawless”, as in lawless men, and is correctly done so in the NIV and others, Strongs *113, *Greek. So basically one has to put the pieces together. When I say I use solely the Word of God, I mean the original Hebrew and Greek text’s, at least the best I can with the limited knowledge and resources I have. I am not a Greek scholar, nor Hebrew, but if one looks hard enough he can still put the pieces together, though I must say that God, Jesus Christ is the Revelator, Revelation 1:1, and it really takes the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:10-14,16. I would add that overall the New King James Version is the most accurate, with fewer errors than the other translations.

You said that one should be able to defend his faith, you are right, I intend to do that. First I would like to apologize again for offending anyone in prior post’s. I will do my best to be humble and non-offensive in my following post. I would answer in this post, but you see there is a lovely young lady that awaits, mustn’t make her wait, mustn’t do that, no.

I’ll talk to you soon, take care, GED

 

[Katholikos]

Glenamyaglen:

Hello Katholikos,

I hope you are well. The Bibles I use “normally” in Sabbath services, and regular study, are primarily the New King James Version, and also secondarily the King James Version. When I get into deep study I use a pretty wide variety, I have the Amplified Version, the NIV, the Living Bible, the New American Bible, the James Moffatt Translation, a NKJV Greek English Interlinear of the New Testament, I also have a Companion Bible from Kregel, (KJV), and a couple different concordances that I use, plus a few history books. . . it really takes the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:10-14,16. I would add that overall the New King James Version is the most accurate, with fewer errors than the other translations.

Glenamyaglin,

I’m sorry if my Q wasn’t clear. I wasn’t asking which** translations** you use. I was referring to a problem even more basic: which collection of writings do you consider to be the Word of God?

As I’ve said previously, the Bible is not a continuous book; rather, it’s a library of books – a collection of writings – written by different people at different times and locations, for different audiences and purposes. The Catholic Church collected, canonized, copied and preserved one Bible – the original Bible. The Church even gave the Bible its name. Then, as different Christian groups emerged, they have decided that different collections of writings are the “Bible.”

My question to you was, which of them is the “real” Bible? How do you know?

Here’s the link to a (Methodist) website that illustrates the problem:

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

Whose Bible is the “real” written Word of God? There are many different collections of books called ‘the Bible.’ Which do you use and why? Why is your collection of writings – your “Bible” – the right one, and the others wrong? How do you know which of the writings among many are inspired and which are not?

To answer the question of this thread, “Do the Scriptures interpret themselves,” we first have to know what is “Scripture” and what isn’t, wouldn’t you agree? And have you read Father Ambrose’s post?

We could debate whether the KJV is a good translation or not on the Scripture forum if you’d like to. I take the opposite view. It is the worst translation; it has many errors.

Also, we have no “original” manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible. That’s a problem for Protestants. We can talk about that on the Scripture forum also if you’d like.

Thanks, and peace be with you,

JMJ Jay

 

[SPOKENWORD]

I do believe that scripture interprets scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit,whom is our teacher.Maybe those who are not in tune with the Holy Spirit are misunderstanding what the Holy Spirit is saying. God Bless

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

I do believe that scripture interprets scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit,whom is our teacher.Maybe those who are not in tune with the Holy Spirit are misunderstanding what the Holy Spirit is saying. God Bless

Ah, that is the question! Which of the many thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations, all claiming to teach the absolute truth, all claiming to have the correct interpretation of the same incomplete 66-book cut version of the Bible, is the Holy Spirit leading to all truth, if any? And if the Holy Spirit is not the teacher of them all, which one is He teaching, if any? And if he’s not teaching all, what makes you think He’s teaching you? Are you alone among all the Protestants “in tune to what the Holy Spirit is saying”? Well, they all think they’re getting answers from the Holy Spirit! The problem is, they have thousands of different answers to the same questions:whacky: . Tell us what the Holy Spirit told you, so we’ll all know.:bowdown:

You won’t even tell us the name of your denomination, though you have been asked many times.

Peace to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers,

JMJ Jay

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

Ah, that is the question! Which of the many thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations, all claiming to teach the absolute truth, all claiming to have the correct interpretation of the same incomplete 66-book cut version of the Bible, is the Holy Spirit leading to all truth, if any? And if the Holy Spirit is not the teacher of them all, which one is He teaching, if any? And if he’s not teaching all, what makes you think He’s teaching you? Are you alone among all the Protestants “in tune to what the Holy Spirit is saying”? Well, they all think they’re getting answers from the Holy Spirit! The problem is, they have thousands of different answers to the same questions:whacky: . Tell us what the Holy Spirit told you, so we’ll all know.:bowdown:

You won’t even tell us the name of your denomination, though you have been asked many times.

Peace to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers,

JMJ Jay

Hi Jay, Im only a part of the body of Christ[church]. Who is in tune can only be answered by each one of us. If we are in tune the Holy Spirit will reveal revelation truth to each of us.The Holy Spirit doesnt teach in error.Im a follower of Christ and each one who walks and lives with Him is a member of His Church. God Bless.

 

[RBushlow]

Glenamyaglen:

We are people who have kept the True Christ of the Bibles Word, we are the True Church that He founded

We all certainly want to belong to the Church that Jesus Christ founded. I’ll be in the Holy Land next year. Can you point out where some of the ancient church buildings of your faith are so I can visit them? I would also like to read up on the Church from that day to this. Can you please cite me some of the early writers from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries?

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello Katholikos, I hope you are doing well.

As you stated before, one should be able to defend ones faith, I agree totally, as it is biblical teaching, 1 Peter 3:15.

This being the case, these books were also written down for us as a whole, as Jesus Christ put it, “Man shall not live … but by EVERY Word of God.” Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4

Now as to your question, “How do we know which is the ***real ***Word of God?” Well first ask yourself another question, “If God tells us to prove all things, 1 Thessanonians 5:21, doesn’t it stand to reason that one CAN prove all things?”, or, Would God command us to do something that was impossible for us to do? Think about it - it doesn’t make sense does it?

Jesus Christ said that Scripture cannot be broken, John 10:35 which means that the Bible cannot and does not contradict itself. Thus it does interpret itself. The Bible fits together like a spiritual puzzle, it only fits together one way, if any other writing is not in harmony with the Bible, if it contradicts the Bible in any way, then that writing is not inspired of God. You cannot “fully” understand one passage by itself as other passages on the same subject add more details, for example, in Matthew 24:7, …“earthquakes in various places.” & Luke 21:11 tells us that they “… will be great earthquakes in various places …” The whole Bible fits together that way, if any writing, it doesn’t matter if it is Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, whatever, if it doesn’t mesh with Gods Word, then that writing is not inspired of God, and it is tragic if one accepts it as such.
.The apostle John said that we are to test the spirits, 1 John 4:1-3, if that spirit doesn’t confess Jesus Christ came in the flesh and is the Son of God, then that is a false spirit. But just a vocal confession is not enough, for Jesus Christ says, “Why do you call Me Lord, Lord and not DO the things which I say?” Luke 6:46. So we must live His Way of life, Matthew 5:16. So what is the test, Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not ***SPEAK ***according to **this Word, **it is because there is NO light in them.” Jesus Christ said we are to keep His sayings, His Word, Matthew 7:24, not other peoples sayings. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:20-21. The apostle John who was the last writer of the Holy Scriptures - thus far - wrote that Jesus Christ said that if we abide in His Word, again not in someone elses, then are we His disciples indeed, John 8:31.Again the O.T. writings are the official writings of Jesus Christ, He inspired the writers through the Holy Spirit. See what He says, Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not ADD to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may KEEP the COMMANDMENTS of the Eternal your God which I command you.” God COMMANDS us to not mess with His Word. Deuteronomy 12:32, “Whatever I command you, BE CAREFUL to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” Proverbs 30:5-6, “Every Word of God is PURE; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”
Lastly I would bring your attention to another writing of the apostle John, again the LAST writer of the Sacred Holy Scriptures, for what he says proves that he is the last TRUE writer, Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

My point being that the early “Church Fathers”, around the 3rd or 4th century, added the other books such as the Maccabees, Tobit, etc… They also added a few words to 1 John 5:7-8 that do NOT belong there, it should read, “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: - the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” All that stuff between “heaven & the Spirit” were added much later, as many Bibles will have that information in the margin. Whats more, if my understanding is correct, and I’m sure it is by your posts, the catholic teachings come from other writings that really have nothing to do with the Bible. God says not to add other teachings to your worship of Him. Whether you put them in His Holy Inspired Word or not, you are still adding to His Word.

For a more in depth research on the authenticity of the Holy Bible here is a link you can visit.

May God bless each of you according to His Will. Take care, GED
lcg.org/files/magazine/janfeb2002/article_0201_05.htm

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello Katholikos,

Again, I apologize. Somehow the link I posted for an accurate account and in depth research on the canonization of the Holy Bible didn’t come out right. At any rate, here it is again.
lcg.org/files/magazines/janfeb2002/article_0201_05.htm
…magazines/janfeb2002/article_0201_05.htm

The full link would not come up it was too long, but if you type in the extra characters it should work.

Thanks GED

 

[RBushlow]

Glenamyaglen:

Again, I apologize. Somehow the link I posted for an accurate account

Glenamyaglen, you didn’t respond to my post. Here it is again.

We all certainly want to belong to the Church that Jesus Christ founded. Can you point out where some of the ancient church buildings of your faith are so I can visit them? I would also like to read up on the Church from that day to this. Can you please cite me some of the early writers from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries?

Yours in Christ.

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello RBushlow,

I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner, Katholikos ask for a defense of my faith, I didn’t even realize you had posted a question towards me. As I pointed out on another thread, the word translated to the English, “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia”, Strongs 1577 Gr. This word is made up of two root words, “kaleo”, Strongs 2564 Gr. meaning: (to call, invite, summon. The authority of the Speaker dictates the nature of the call.) The other word is “ek”, Strongs 1537, meaning: (of, out of; from, away from. Having to do with one being seperated out of, away from that which he or she was originally.) In this case meaning to be called out of this world “spiritually” by God to be part of His Begotten Family, His Church. See John 17:6, 14-16 God is making a spiritual house, not a physical building, 1 Peter 2:5. So the term Church of God could be said the Called of God, because thats what it means.

Gods Church anciently gathered to worship in various places, from synagogues to peoples homes Acts 20:9, to places outside of populated areas, Acts 16:13, they didn’t have to be in a church “building” because the people (those who have Gods Holy Spirit) constitute the body of Christ, Colossians 1:18, 24, the actual Church of God. So, no, I cant give you a place where you can find ancient buildings where Gods Church worshipped - but in light of what I just brought out, it really matters not.

The Holy Bible, the foundational teaching and writing is often rejected as the source of the Way one should worship God. The answer to the question you ask is the Bible, those are the original writings, and have been “preserved” from that time to this for us to live by.

I hope this is helpful to you, take care, GED

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello Katholikos,

I expected to hear from you much sooner than now. Listen I understand how shocking and almost unbelievable the Truth is at first, I went through the same trauma. I was not trying to hurt you, but show you the Truth. I’ve done that, now you may do with it what you will.

May the Ever Living One, the Great God of Creation bless each of you according to His Will.

Take care, GED

 

[RBushlow]

Glenamyaglen:

So, no, I cant give you a place where you can find ancient buildings where Gods Church worshipped - but in light of what I just brought out, it really matters not.

It does indeed matter. If yours is actually the original Church that Christ founded, I would be interested in visiting some of them.

The Holy Bible, the foundational teaching and writing is often rejected as the source of the Way one should worship God. The answer to the question you ask is the Bible, those are the original writings, and have been preserved from that time

The scriptures were indeed preserved down through the ages upon ages by the Church which Christ founded. The ancient manuscripts of both they and all of the generations that followed down to the present day are indeed preserved. Where are these ancient manuscripts preserved?

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your search.

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello RBushlow, I hope you are well.

As I pointed out on an earlier post addressing Katholikos, all the writings that were added “after” the last writer of the Bible, the apostle John, are invalid and do not constitute real Scripture. John gives a stern warning to anyone who would add to the Holy Scriptures in the very last book of the Holy Bible, Revelation 22:18.

For an in depth and irrefutable overview of what I am talking about just scroll up about 5 or 6 posts, there is even a link you can go to for an even more in depth and irrefutable research anlysis on what is and what is not the real conanization of the Holy Scriptures.

As to visiting a place of worship of ancient times, if you can find the spot where Paul and the others worshipped on the SABBATH Day next to the riverside, Acts 16:13, then have at it, I dont know where its at. Again Christ is building a spiritual house of people who have Gods Spirit in them, 1 Peter 2:5, NOT A fancy building! Notice 2 Corinthians 6:16, “And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? FOR YOU ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD. AS GOD HAS SAID: I will dwell IN THEM and walk among them. I will be their God and they will be My people.”

Thanks GED

 

[Church_Militant]

Glenamyaglen:

Hello Katholikos,

Again, I apologize. Somehow the link I posted for an accurate account and in depth research on the canonization of the Holy Bible didn’t come out right. At any rate, here it is again.
lcg.org/files/magazines/janfeb2002/article_0201_05.htm
…magazines/janfeb2002/article_0201_05.htm

It is worth noting that, during debates on the canon, those writings which drew the greatest opposition by these early Roman Catholic leaders had two characteristics in common. They either contained warnings of an apostasy from the truth (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude), or they contained a strong “Jewish” flavor (James and Hebrews).

 Clearly, many Roman Catholic leaders were uncomfortable with the message contained in these books—and for good reason! However, there was such an overwhelming awareness of the genuine nature of these books, particularly in Asia Minor and in Greece, that removing them from the New Testament proved impossible. The Council of Carthage, far from establishing the New Testament canon, simply represented an acknowledgment by the Roman church that the canon known and established since the end of the first century could not be altered.

From his link above:

This is so lame… The Catholic Church CANONIZED these very books in 393 & 397! He’s right that it was an acknowlegement of what we knew was really inspired, but It WASN"T the Catholic Church that fought these books. Talk about a spin doctor! Sheesh! the discussion and debate was part of the process. BTW what can he say about Martin Luther taking some of these very books OUT of the Bible in the 1500s. If this man’s a scholar then I’m a Jehovah’s Witness…

Check THIS out!
Look who this article belongs to…

Living Church of God - Who Are We?

 The Living Church of God is a new organization with an old history. Its leader, Dr. Roderick C. Meredith, was one of the original evangelists ordained by the late Herbert W. Armstrong in December 1952.  For more than half a century Dr. Meredith has powerfully proclaimed the truth of God to millions through his hundreds of articles and booklets.  He has conducted personal evangelistic campaigns throughout the United States, Canada, and the British Isles. Additionally, he has broadcast over radio and television to the whole English-speaking world.

 The Living Church of God is active in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australasia. It has scores of ordained ministers and over two hundred congregations. In addition to broadcasts by Dr. Meredith and fellow evangelist Richard Ames in the English language, the Church sponsors broadcasts in French with Dibar Apartian, in Spanish with Mario Hernandez, and in the South African Afrikaans language with Syd Hull.

 Church members today view themselves as the spiritual heirs of the original Jerusalem Church of New Testament time.

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello Mr Militant, I hope you are well.

Though he did not mention Martin Luther’s shinannigins he is quite aware of them. The article was on the canonization of the Holy Bible, not so much about any given religious group, whether they be Catholic or Protestant. He is not a Catholic scholar but he is a walking library of history and he preaches the Truth of God.

I would invite all else to go to the link and read the whole article and learn the Truth about the Holy Bible.

Thank you Mr. Militant

GED